Suspected Lesbian Ann Coulter Once Again Savages the Innocent

Suspected lesbian Ann Coulter has published another hate-text with the National Inquirer of the Internet, i.e. World Net Daily.  She is once again bashing Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, two innocent college kids who were savaged by Italy's execrable system of justice.

I have refuted Coulter before on this topic, don't know that I will waste the time again.  It is safe to say, however, that I would kick her bony ass in any debate over the topic.  Like Mignini, the convicted-for-abuse prosecutor of Knox and Sollecito, Coulter is on a vendetta.  Having previously embarrassed herself with completely false factoids about the case, she could apologize and change course; being a soulless, egotistical phony, she would prefer to add to the misery of these innocent kids than admit she was wrong.  That, and to use them as a cudgel with which to beat Anderson Cooper and any other liberal who defends Knox and Sollecito.

I realized that there is something "off" about Ann  Coulter when I read one of her most recent books.  In that book she advanced the erroneous theory that Republicans have always been the champions of racial equality, whereas the Democrats have always been the champions of slavery and segregation.  What a load of bovine excrement.  The Republican Party's motto at the time of Lincoln was "The White People's Party," and the Republicans opposed slavery in the territories because they despised blacks and considered them inferior human beings.  They wanted the new territories off limits to blacks.  Various Republican states passed laws making it illegal for blacks to set foot in their states, both before and after the Civil War. As de Tocqueville pointed out, "there is more color prejudice North than South," which also translates to "blacks were treated better in the Democrat South than they were in the Republican North."

Now let's note one more thing:  why is super-Christian Ann Coulter still unmarried at age 51?  Is she a lesbian?  Is it because no man can stand her long enough to meet her at the alter?  Or is she just just having too much fun fornicating?  Inquiring minds want to know.  AND, those same minds want to illustrate how anyone can take a "fact" and draw extreme conclusions and inferences, like Coulter repetitively referring to Amanda Knox as "convicted murderer Amanda Knox."  One might better refer to her as "acquitted of bogus charges of murder by a corrupt prosecutor" Amanda Knox.

 From now on, perhaps I will refer to Ann Coulter as "suspected lesbian Ann Coulter" (apologies to lesbians).  One thing I will never refer to her as again is "conservative author" or "heroine of the right."  She has disgraced herself too many times.

Men's Rights Online: Reasons for False Charges of "Sexual Harassment"

A website called "Men's Rights Online" discuss reasons why some women file false "sexual harassment" charges against bosses or instructors.  They say:

Incentive

The two main incentives are financial gain and spite, respectively, though the latter option has been used by angry employees who wanted to ruin a rival man's reputation. Attention seeking can be a factor, too.

Victims

Large corporations have been targeted by opportunistic women. Any claim, regardless of how absurd, can take a long time to disprove. The negative publicity associated with a long, drawn-out court case can have a negative impact on the company's standing in the community. For example, a consumer might avoid dealing with the company until all doubt over their guilt has been determined. Not all members of the public accept a court's ruling when a company is cleared of wrongdoing, either. Due to this, quite a few companies have settled out of court because it was less costly than clearing their name. This is the reason opportunistic women have used this ploy.

Read it here.

Update:  Ann Coulter's latest column shows how insane the "sexual harassment" charges were in the 1990's, with huge damages awarded to complaining women for the most absurd reasons.  Read it here.

Update:  Andrew McCarthy at the Corner also describes the hypocrisy and lack of substance in the charges against Cain, and the ambiguity and general stupidity of "sexual harassment" claims.  Read it here.

Ann Coulter's Continuing Error on Amanda Knox and My Rebuttal

Note to Readers:  Prominent conservatives are not immune from criticism at this blog, especially when they have taken positions or made statements that are lazily based on myth or rumor instead of fact, or when they are patently self-serving.  I have previously leveled serious criticism at Mark Levin for this, for example (on his biased and erroneous concepts of the American Civil War).  Ann Coulter seems determined to destroy any credibility she has left with sloppy thinking and zero research into the facts surrounding the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox, and this is not her first excursion into the subject.  She deserves a broadside and she gets it below.

*****

Over at World Net Daily Ann Coulter has once again insisted that Amanda Knox was guilty of murder, in spite of an almost complete absence of evidence or motive tying Knox to the crime.  Amanda Knox, if you don't know, is an American student who was studying in Italy and wrongly convicted of murdering her housemate, Meredith Kercher.  (The real perpetrator, a thug named Rudy Guede, was convicted of the crime after his bloody footprints, fingerprints, DNA and semen were found all over the crime scene.  He lied and said he was only a spectator, that Amanda Knox and another housemate, Raffaele Sollecito, committed the crime, even though there was no DNA or fingerprints or bloody footprints from either of them anywhere near the crime scene, despite Mignini's misrepresentations to the contrary).  Guede's lies were not unrewarded:  his 30 year prison term for murder was reduced to only 16 years.  Knox and Sollecito were later sentenced to 26 and 25 years, respectively -- based only on the imagination of Prosecutor Mignini.  Note the irony:  the actual murderer got ten years less than two innocent people.  Italian justice would appear to be little more than a bad joke.

Knox had nothing to do with the crime, and the extensive scenario described by a ruthlessly dishonest prosecutor was nothing more than a fantasy.  The prosecution's "evidence" has been thoroughly debunked by former FBI agent Steven Moore and Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry, Mark Waterubury, PhD, among others.  Indeed, there has been a growing crowd of voices who have reviewed the evidence and have concluded that Amanda Knox and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito are innocent.  Nevertheless, Coulter continues to repeat disproven prosecution arguments as if they were fact, showing that her grasp of the case is entirely superficial.  For instance, she argues:

1.  That Amanda Knox falsely implicated her boss, Patrick Lumumba, in the crime, "to throw suspicion off of herself."  However, that's not true.  The prosecutors had found a negro hair at the murder site and suspected Lumumba, who is black.  They wanted Knox to implicate Lumumba so they could arrest him.  In a rigorous and exhausting all-night interrogation of Knox, where she was denied sleep, water and food and often slapped on the back of the head "to help her remember," the prosecution obtained a false and coerced "confession":  Knox was asked to "imagine" a scenario where Lumumba took part in the murder, and she gave the imaginary scenario as requested, to stop the tortuous ordeal of an abusive interrogation and finally be allowed to drink water and sleep.  (Note:  I recently saw a documentary unrelated to this case that proved false confessions are easy to obtain through aggressive techniques such as these.  That's why they are illegal in most western nations.)  Lumumba was arrested, but had an air tight alibi and was soon released.  The negro hair, however, belonged to the real killer, a black man named Rudy Guede who was later convicted.  No problem for the prosecution:  they dropped Lumumba and inserted Guede into their fantasized scenario of group sex turned murder.  [See more about false confessions here.]

2.  That the break-in had been "staged" by Knox and Sollecito to hide their own guilt.  The evidence:  broken glass from the entry window was scattered about the room on top of clothes on the floor, which were allegedly thrown around to make the room appear ransacked by a burglar.  If the clothes were thrown around after the break-in, they would have been on top of the glass, not the other way around.  Therefore, the prosecution concluded that Knox et al must have broken the window AFTER they had strewn clothes around to simulate a break-in.  The "staged break-in," however, was nothing but unproven speculation.

The truth:  the entry room was very small and the resident who lived there had very limited closet space, so she stored a lot of her clothes on the floor.  Some of her clothes were dirty and in messy piles, and so when Rudy Guede broke the window with a rock, the glass naturally landed on top of these existing piles.  The clothing was not put there by Knox or Sollecito.  Further, the rock that broke the window damaged the wooden window shutter, hit the floor, hit a paper bag on the floor, and rolled to a stop further in the room, where it was later found.  Coulter bases her argument simply on the false scenario painted by the prosecution, who had prejudged the case from the beginning and was looking for "evidence" to support its preconceived notions.

3.  That investigators determined there were multiple assailants in the murder.  Actually, this isn't true at all.  The prosecution, bent on getting convictions at any cost, simply lied about it.  There is no physical evidence to support this claim.  The only fingerprints, footprints and DNA in the murder room (besides those of the victim) were those of Rudy Guede.  Even the unflushed feces in the toilet were those of Guede (based on DNA testing).  There is no credible physical evidence or motive that ties Knox or Sollecito to the crime...none at all.

Coulter's latest column indicates that Knox must be guilty because some liberals are supporting her, and it's not a question of guilt or innocence, but of conservatism vs liberalism.  If convicting two innocent people of a crime they didn't commit and ruining their lives helps conservatism, it isn't obvious to me.

However, the question of Knox and Sollecito's guilt or innocence isn't about partisan politics.  It is about two young people wrongly convicted of a crime they did not commit, by a seemingly unbalanced prosecutor who has now been convicted himself to a 16 month prison term for prosecutorial irregularities in another case.

I am very much disappointed in Ann Coulter.  Her latest publicity-seeking gambit displays a slippery grasp of the facts, and is based on popular rumors and falsehoods, all of which have been disproved.  If this is an example of Coulter's intellectual honesty and rigor, then why should anyone believe any of her arguments on any subject?  I say this as someone who has read most of her books (including her most recent, Demonic) and who has defended her on many an occasion, as my posts in this blog will show.

Right now, in Italy, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are apparently winning their appeals trial (all of the prosecution's so-called DNA evidence had been thrown out) and it is expected that they will be exonerated and released by the end of this month.  After almost four years of wrongful imprisonment, these two young college students may be able to resume their lives.

If any readers want to know just how thoroughly the prosecution's case has been debunked, visit this site:
www.injusticeinperugia.com.

Related post:  "At Long Last, Ms. Coulter, Have You No Sense of Decency?"

Ann Coulter at Ottawa: Please Don't Feed the Skanks

Ann Coulter was supposed to speak yesterday at the University of Ottawa in Canada.  However, the leftwing campus trash showed up outside the auditorium carrying rocks and sticks and screaming at the top of their lungs.  Naturally, the cowardly faculty canceled Coulter's speech.

One of the screamers was a woman with a cavernous mouth, which she opened wide for all the world to see.   Here is the original picture of this Skank-on-Steroids, shouting at Ann Coulter.

I Photoshopped Skankzilla and now Ann Coulter is feeding her breakfast.  Ain't that nice?

Ann Coulter is wrong on Amanda Knox; claims Knox is guilty on O'Reilly Factor

I have long been a fan of Ann Coulter, but she sometimes sticks her foot in her mouth.  She did so when she stupidly called VP candidate John Edwards a "faggot" at the CPAC conference, and she did so tonight on the O'Reilly Factor in asserting that Amanda Knox was actually guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher, based on evidence that has been convincingly refuted.

Coulter claims that Amanda's "confession" under duress is proof of Knox's guilt and points to the kitchen knife as additional proof.  The kitchen knife in question had Knox's DNA on the handle (meaning only that Knox used it for food preparation); it also had trace amounts of someone's DNA on the blade tip (the prosecution claimed it was Kercher's).  [Update:  experts in the appeals trial have now stated that there was no blood on the kitchen knife at all -- just trace amounts of DNA.] However, the alleged Kercher DNA was too small to measure and was not admissible as evidence.  That didn't prevent the prosecution from alleging it anyway.

Coulter did not respond to the fact that clear, bloody impressions of the actual knife (on Kercher's bedsheet) did not match the kitchen knife at all.  Furthermore, expert testimony stated that the wounds on Kercher's neck could not have been made with the kitchen knife.  But, Coulter says, the kitchen knife had been cleaned.  Gee, imagine that, someone washed a kitchen utensil after using it -- who would have guessed?

Coulter also stated that Sollecito's "bloody fingerprint" was found on Kercher's bra strap, but none of the accounts I have read state that is the case.  They state that a small amount of Sollecito's DNA was found on the bra strap, which was handled and moved several times without being protected from contamination.  [Update:  it has now been disclosed that the bra strap lay on the floor, under a rug, for 47 days before being found and that it bore trace amounts of DNA from several people (no doubt from dander).  There was no "bloody fingerprint" at all, and the bra strap should never have been introduced as evidence.]

Further, Coulter repeats the prosecution's claim that a window was broken to make the crime appear to be the result of a break-in.  However, no evidence has been provided to show that it was Knox or Sollecito who broke the window -- perhaps it was broken by Guede for that purpose, whose bloody fingerprints were found in abundance in Kercher's bedroom. [It has since been established that the broken window was indeed used by Guede to gain entrance to the residence.]

Ann Coulter claims that the CBS analyst Peter Van Sant, who earlier defended Knox on O'Reilly was not to be believed because he is "a liberal."

It may be that Amanda Knox was somehow involved in the murder, but the evidence to that effect is highly underwhelming.  I'd love to see a head to head debate on the issue by Coulter and Van Sant.

Ann Coulter, you disappoint me.

See the Times description of this evidence here.

Update:  Since I posted this, I have come to believe that Amanda Knox and Raffael Sollecito are innocent of the crime.  See Injustice in Perugia, a site detailing the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffael Sollecito.

Ann Coulter's Most Famous Quote

You frequently see the image at the left on leftist blogs and websites. Apparently, they think this very reasonable suggestion by Ann Coulter is a bad thing. Go figure.

Coulter rightly believes that killing leaders of Muslim countries and converting their minions to a (truly) peaceful religion would bring peace to the world. She's right. A major tenet at the heart of Islam is that Muslims are at war with all mankind and must remain so until we are all Islamic converts. As a survival strategy, converting them to our religion instead doesn't seem a bad bet.

Of course, I'd rather not invade their countries (though killing their leaders is certainly appealing -- thank God for flying drones); we could develop our own energy supplies and leave these barbarians to die on the vine. Who knows, they might invent some great new recipes for sand. Then again, they might have to. Maybe mix it with crude oil and sell it as brownies.

Leftists have a counter plan. Instead of invading Muslim countries, we should organize an invasion of ours through massive immigration of unassimilable, hostile Muslims so they can create huge enclaves in the West, then lobby for institution of Sharia law and censorship of all who object.

Eventually, they will become the major culture in our societies, reducing westerners to a state of dhimmitude. Leftists and libtards are already practicing for this happy state by wearing Muslim scarves, banning truth telling as "hate speech," prosecuting those who speak out at this rapidly developing dhimmitude dilemma, requiring halal food to be served in school cafeterias, and generally making complete asses of themselves. Well, liberals have always made complete asses of themselves; the ascent of Islam as the new tyranny merely gives them new ways of expressing themselves.

In other words, Leftists want us to become Europe.

Ann Coulter at CPAC 2009: the Videos

In a room filled with pompous, liberal balloons, Ann Coulter is a long, sharp pin.


Video 1 of 3



Video 2 of 3



Video 3 of 3

Ann Coulter on Scooter Libby and Democrat Malfeasance

Ann Coulter may sometimes shoot herself in the foot, but when she sticks to facts she is unbeatable. She weighs in today on the Scooter Libby verdict and the Democrats misuse of the judicial system to persecute Republicans. She writes:

Lewis Libby has now been found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice for lies that had absolutely no legal consequence.

It was not a crime to reveal Valerie Plame's name because she was not a covert agent. If it had been a crime, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald could have wrapped up his investigation with an indictment of the State Department's Richard Armitage on the first day of his investigation since it was Armitage who revealed her name and Fitzgerald knew it.

With no crime to investigate, Fitzgerald pursued a pointless investigation into nothing, getting a lot of White House officials to make statements under oath and hoping some of their recollections would end up conflicting with other witness recollections, so he could charge some Republican with "perjury" and enjoy the fawning media attention.

As a result, Libby is now a convicted felon for having a faulty memory of the person who first told him that Joe Wilson (news, bio, voting record) was a delusional boob who lied about his wife sending him to Niger.

This makes it official: It's illegal to be Republican.

Read the whole article here.